LexisNexis has selected some recently issued noteworthy IMR decisions that illustrate the criteria that must be met to obtain authorization for a variety of different medical treatment modalities. LexisNexis...
By Christopher Mahon, LexisNexis Legal Insights Contributing Author A September 2024 study from the Workers Compensation Research Institute indicates that workers represented by an attorney in workers’...
By Hon. Colleen Casey, Former Commissioner, California Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board “Substantial Medical Evidence” is a ubiquitous catch-all phrase. When does it exist? When...
CALIFORNIA COMPENSATION CASES Vol. 90, No. 1 January 2025 A Report of En Banc and Significant Panel Decisions of the WCAB and Selected Court Opinions of Related Interest, with a Digest of WCAB Decisions...
By Hon. Colleen Casey, Former Commissioner, California Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board Cases of “first impression” seldom wander into our workers’ compensation world. When...
Where an employer paid a “field electrician” a weekly stipend of $75, but neither (a) required the employee to keep records regarding travel expenses nor (b) required the additional payment to be spent for travel, the employee would not be considered a traveling employee on that basis alone, held a Texas appellate court. The employee’s fatal injuries, sustained as he drove toward the employer’s office—and directly toward his traditional work site—did not arise out of the employment. Moreover, the mere fact that the employee had planned to drop off the time records of the employee’s team at the employer’s office on the way to the employee’s normal work site did not transform the employee’s commute into business travel. The hearing officer found that the employee was not required to deliver the records personally; he could have faxed them from the work site or given them to another employee who traveled between the work site and the office daily. While having the time records with the employee did benefit the employer, the decision to deliver the records in that particular fashion did not bring the action within the employment. The death benefits claim was barred by the going and coming rule.
Thomas A. Robinson, J.D., the Feature National Columnist for the LexisNexis Workers’ Compensation eNewsletter, is the co-author of Larson’s Workers’ Compensation Law (LexisNexis).
LexisNexis Online Subscribers: Citations below link to Lexis Advance.
See Fuentes v. Texas Mut. Ins. Co., 2017 Tex. App. LEXIS 10243 (Nov. 1, 2017)
See generally Larson’s Workers’ Compensation Law, § 14.02.
Source: Larson’s Workers’ Compensation Law, the nation’s leading authority on workers’ compensation law
For a more detailed discussion of the case, see